suppressing information like failing to index a blog is also un- & anti-democratic

.. censored inputs ...

  .. indicate systemic bias ...

    .. and may lead to poster radicalisation

-=*=-
 
[update, 17Jun'11, update, 19Jun'11.]

A funny thing happened after recently submitting what I regard as a *fair* comment and having it censored; my corresponding blog-report here has so far not been indexed; I don't suppose we really have to wonder why?

"This happened once before
when I came to your door
No reply
They said it wasn't you
but I saw you peep through
your window"

- democracy's the loser...

Censored inputs indicate systemic bias and may lead to poster radicalisation.

-=*end*=-

PS It's not all inputs that are censored (just one would be too many), but what is censored indicates the (erring!) ideology of the censors. That AusBC is tax-payer supported and they dare to un- & anti-democratically censor anything is proof of their corruption and treachery both.

-=*=-
 
Update, 17Jun'11; Progress. From the google cache @ appr 07:30, this post and the preceding 'message' post have now been indexed, but the home-page cache is still old = down-level. If one wonders how they do that, I'd say 'bad fingers.'

It can be proven that I submitted a comment (I keep the receipts), and that indexing was interfered with. The question only becomes: Whose bad fingers?

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Update, 19Jun'11; Progress? Not much, if any; still some down-level indexing. This article is deliberately duplicated, partly as a test.

A bit of nontrivia: Consider auto-da-fé[1], then heretic[2], a thesaurus entry for which is listed below[3]. If we dump all the supernatural implications (as totally invalid), the issue then is truth vs. lies. I advocate for truth & justice; in that frame it is the liars (commission/omission) who are the heretics, aka recusants (recalls Marxisant. Haw!) Also not just by-the-way, 'belief' is what people do in the absence of evidence; hence on principle I am *not* a believer.

Interfering with free-speech is a crime against democracy, and invalidates the perpetrator-platform.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] auto-da-fé  n. (pl. autos-da-fé) 1 hist. ceremonial judgement of heretics by the Spanish Inquisition. 2 public burning of heretics. [Portuguese, = act of the faith] [POD]

[2] heretic  n. 1 person believing in or practising religious heresy. 2 holder of an unorthodox opinion.  heretical adj.[ibid.]

[3] ›noun
he was condemned as a heretic and executed at the stake
DISSIDENT, dissenter, nonconformist, unorthodox thinker, heterodox thinker, apostate, freethinker, iconoclast, schismatic, renegade; sceptic, agnostic, atheist, non-believer, unbeliever, idolater, idolatress, pagan, heathen; separatist, sectarian, revisionist; rare tergiversator, recreant, recusant, nullifidian; archaic paynim.
-opposite(s): CONFORMIST; BELIEVER. [New Oxford Thesaurus of English]

[«back»]

message to unleashed moderators and commenters

.. censorship is ...

  .. un- & anti-democratic ...

    .. censors are democracy-criminals

-=*=-

Free speech is an essential part of democracy; only so may we exchange facts and opinions - obvious.

Censorship - of fair comment - happens far too often on unleashed; just once is already damnable. So, message to unleashed moderators: Kindly stop censoring fair comment.

Message to unleashed commenters: IF you post a fair comment to unleashed AND it is censored, THEN you may post your comment here as a comment; if I judge it as 'fair comment' then I will publish it.

A good collection of censored comments may expose the bias of the censoring moderators, and provide evidence to support more serious actions, see below.

(*Unfair* comment would be abuse, extreme ad-homs or silly language, it's just common sense and no one needs it.)

 .. specific requirements and recommendations regarding comments to Unleashed:
  "Comments which the ABC considers to be abusive, defamatory, discriminatory or off-topic, or otherwise unlawful, will not be published." 
[abc/thedrum]

Comments based on, and/or responding to already published comments should be allowed, also with some tolerance - that'd only be fair = normal democratic conversation.

In any case, a good next step against unfair AusBC censorship is to take complaint(s) to your local Federal MP.

Another possible next step would be the appropriate ombudsman or state-sponsored legal aid.

All fair comment welcome here - trolls needn't bother.

PS Copies of comments posted to unleashed, never to be seen again = censored, submitted here as a comment should include a) the post-point, b) the unl-thread "name" or number, and c) the approximate comment posting-time.

i.e. Re: Unbeliever@09Jun'11,3:15:56pm on "Prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons," censored comment posted 10Jun'11,3:51am.

censorious AusBC unleashed moderators should be gaoled - if not worse - tumbrels!

Two comments submitted to "Prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons," neither published. GRRR!

1. Re: Unbeliever@09Jun'11,3:15:56pm

{The A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instantly killing x (the 'lucky' victims) and leading to the lingering death of y, altogether about ¼mio dead, is a study in complexity.

«Even in the event of a US mainland invasion, the highest projected casualty estimates for US forces were not "over a million" like Stimson and Truman later claimed, but between 30,000 and 50,000 [3]. More importantly, prior to August 1945 Truman and his advisers had considered it possible that the war would end without either the atomic bombs or a mainland invasion by US forces [4].»

A well-entrenched propaganda technique is to deploy a deception so shocking that it causes wide-spread stupefaction; see the exaggerated estimate [3], then ¼mio horribly dead Japanese appears comparatively 'worth it.' Further, there's the contradiction [4] - the 'official narrative' fails as multiply, deliberately deceptive.

The 'unconditional' demand was a psy-op to *delay* surrender until the bombs were ready; proof = Hirohito continued as emperor.

What the US did get was otherwise unobtainable data on U-235 and Pu-239 bombs on 'live' civilian targets, simultaneously 'sending a message' illustrating their brutality, especially to Russia. Similar messaging techniques occur along the Deir Yassin through Cast Lead time-line.}

2. Re: Anon@08Jun'11,5:36:52pm

{One of two possible reasons may explain assertions contradicting historical fact, namely ignorance or malice.

[Van Crevel]
«"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force."»

[Golda Meir]
«At a point I interrupted her to say: “Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying... You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?”
Without the shortest of pauses for reflection, ... Golda replied, “Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying.”»

One assumes that only enemies are to be targeted, making the entire world - which currently includes Israel, classified as 'enemy.'

In 'normal' criminal justice, the threat of assault is usually considered equivalent to the assault itself, and making threats as blackmail = coercion & intimidation, etc..

The "Samson Option" = greatest 'suicide-bomber' threat possible, ever.}

submitted to unl,2715898 on 19May'11, ~12:30am; not published

People who kill other people in cold blood are psychopaths, either by nature ("My mother made me a ...") or by nurture (military training, say).

Someone *may* have hijacked aircraft (the FBI admitted having no proof on ObL, and passports fluttering out of *that* devastation don't pass the 'giggle-test'), but ObL&Co did *not* 'do' 9/11 - unless they had an invitation & free access - to pre-load the *3* WTC towers with high-explosives&detonator-systems. Proof: Find a few clear videos, *watch closely* - and then think a bit.

War is immoral (mostly murdering theft); 'legal' is a corrupt construct.

Our so-called 'democracies' are complete sham; two of many proofs: 1) dumbed-down and lied-to sheople cannot make 'informed' votes & 2) bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic; US, UK & Aus changed from tweedle-dumb to tweedle-dumber but the wars continue. What we actually have are tyrannies-by-stealth, camouflaged by the corrupt&venal MSM.

Laws made amongst 'consenting tyrannies' have no valid application vis-à-vis us, we the sheople; only just law may earn respect.

Since the 'ruling élites' are stand-alone-tyrants like the spoiled-brat sovereigns of old (nothing élite about criminality), if they wish to steal others' resources, they should keep the killing strictly amongst themselves, and leave us, we the sheople, to get on with enjoying life - instead of being lied to, scared shitless, and sent off to wars-for-spoil to personally be killed, or to mass-slaughter 100s of 1000s of innocent 'collaterals.'

Without some clear thinking leading to effective action and soon, our so-called 'ruling elites' will f**k-up our life-supporting ecosphere - and that ain't too flash.

Comment added for this article: AusBC censorship of fair comment proves that they're in it up to their quivering bottom-lips.

UN to enable France+UK, US & NATO - to bring justice to Palestine (by bombing Israel)

 
[update ~12:50PM, update 12Apr'11, update ~12:10PM, update ~15:30PM,
 update 13Apr'11, a final post]

[update 13Apr'11:]

Definitions:

AIMs4S = alien invader murderers for spoil (i.e. soil, oil; also AIM4S)

ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers (i.e. improperly dispossessed Palestinians)

PPP = pushed-propaganda paradigm (mostly lies; a 'specialty' of 'reporters' like Anne Barker, say)

Ethnic cleansing "is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. (Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780)". [wiki]

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. [wiki]

burglar analogy = how to describe the Zionist crimes against Palestine, hence 'improper alienation.'

improper alienation = the reverse of "A fair exchange is no robbery"

revest = return stolen property, i.e. by AIMs4S to ELO/Os, say.

Note: Most of the censored 1st comment has now been published, in modified form split across several subsidiary posts.

Comment: Censoring valid debate inputs (i.e. unl-comments) is un- & anti-democratic and thus is a crime against us, we the voting sheople; censorship-perpetrators should be both immediately sacked and severely punished = into gaol.

[end update]

-=*=-

Original beginning:

The following submitted as comment to AusBC/unleashed, target = It's democracy stupid @ ~4:45pm, 11Apr'11:

«UNGA181 was 'problematic,' 'debatable' and *undemocratic* from the outset (the mostly Palestinian erstwhile legal owner/occupiers (ELO/Os) were neither (properly) consulted nor their (known, anticipated) wishes respected); latest after the evidence of utterly primitive savagery = ethnic cleansing, genocide and land-theft via operations such as the Deir Yassin massacre (11Apr'48), UNGA181 should have been annulled. Yet the I/J/Z-plex project "Eretz-Yisra'el" was 'allowed' to endure until UNGA273 (11May'49), whereby the Israeli regime *promised* to abide by UNGA181 (respect Palestinians' rights) and UNGA194 (acknowledge Palestinians' right of return). That Israel has been continuously in breach of UNGA273 ever since is *not* in any doubt (one look tells all), making the Z-project wholly illegitimate, latest from 11May'49.

Following UNGA1973, first French+UK warplanes then US (predominately Tomahawk robot-missiles), now NATO warplanes a) demolished Libya's air-force and -defences, b) are attacking Libya's armed forces, ostensibly to 'protect' civilians, incidentally(?) aiding 'revolutionary/rebels' in a civil war.

Sauce for the goose; France+UK, US & NATO should now return the favour and come to the aid of the hapless Palestinian ELO/Os, the air-force and -defences and armed forces of the AIMs4S (aggressively invading murderers for spoil) should now be similarly suppressed/eliminated.»

Waiting for AusBC publication (or not?)

-=*=-
 
Update, ~4hrs later; unnaturally enough, the AusBC/unl p-clock has not yet crawled up to my comment-submit time - so comment still not visible means not (yet?) censored ... trying another anyway, target = @ 09 Apr 2011 5:53:45pm:

«Bipartisan support for anything - here land-theft from hapless ELO/Os (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) by violence up to and including murder (alien invader murderers for spoil = AIMs4S) - is both un- & anti-democratic.»

Ooops; forgot to add: " .. as it offers the voter *no* effective choice."

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Update, 12Apr'11; result = 1st not published = censored, 2nd published ... trying two more, 1st new target = dgr @ 11 Apr 2011 9:30:32pm:

«The outrages of Plan Dalet etc. were premeditated crimes, see Dier Yassin as just one of many, see Herzl & Jabotinsky for premeditation, Balfour & Truman (thanks Eric) for 'great power' perfidy. Shall such crimes and treachery merely be forgotten = forgiven? Under what *moral/legal* = *humanitarian/justice* principles? Then, such crimes (see AIMs4S elsewhere) have been repeated at intervals in the 63+ bloody years since. The proof is in the public domain; ever more of Palestine being gobbled up by an illegitimate entity, see "illegal wall" and "illegal settlements" as manifestations. Should such crimes (indelibly written on history in the name of the I/J/Z-plex) *ever* be ignored = unpunished? Why?

As preconditions to UNGA273, the Israeli regime *promised* to respect UNGA181 (inalienable Palestinians' rights) and UNGA194 (Palestinians' right of return) in particular, and the UN (international legal framework) in general. Observe that Israel was/is continuously in breach of both 181 & 194. For another proof of illegitimacy see the unanimously adopted UNSCR242, the preamble of which refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..." How much more suffering must the hapless, improperly dispossessed ELO/Os bear, how much proof is needed before the perpetrators are brought to justice?»

-=*=-
 
Update, ~12:10PM, now this is getting interesting; above "brought to justice" comment published, so the following was then submitted,

 .. and 2nd new target = hallway hallway @ 12 Apr 2011 11:00:13am:

«That Lib may equal Lab on Israel (or worse, say neo-liberalism = privatising the public domain, to the sheople's enduring loss) - proves *nothing* about voter intention; in a predominately two-party system, a bipartisan consensus (note: between the two major groups of so-called 'representatives') on *anything* = un- & anti-democratic, since it offers the voters *no* effective choice at all = total loss of sovereignty. To make the latter less obvious, the sheople are immersed in propaganda = lies = deceived, encouraged into a TV/sport/celebrity culture to dumb them down = distracted. Where/when so deceived & distracted, an electorate is incapable of any rational decision, even if they were offered some real choice. All deliberately done, thanks, but "No, thanks!" to our so-called 'leaders,' the (corrupt & venal) MSM and sell-out academia (mainly corrupt economists) - who really should know *and do* better. Where is the Enlightenment, (vis-à-vis Israel, where is truth & justice = absent for hapless Palestinians), *where is my vote*? Apropos people 'voting with their feet,' anyone recall the Fugawi tribe?»

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Update, ~15:30PM; phew! Fast & furious, over here; "Fugawi" published *and* the next (target = It's demonisation, stupid @ 12 Apr 2011 4:44:01pm too, followed below by two newly submitted & still queued):

«Bravo 'demonisation,' a very good start in the 'win-win' direction.

There're still at least two items 'to do,' namely *fair&acceptable* compensation for the victims and the 'bringing to justice' of the perpetrators - plus an 'extra' item, somewhat tarnished reputations to possibly be rebuilt.

Some of us like to assume 'the best' in regard for our fellow-wo/men, so it's unlikely that *all* the people involved in the Israel-debacle were actually intentionally bad. Having said that, there are those who thought land-theft was a good idea, those who actually did the thieving (starting with Irgun et al.) and those who gave the orders. Some of these are now dead = beyond redemption, and some will deny responsibility (aka quislings, cowards etc.) and others will continue to deny that vicious crimes were committed at all. To all this I simply say: "Look around Palestine; what happened there pre- and post-UNGA181?"

After Nuremberg, the spectre of the gallows looms. But, since we are compassionate in our pursuit of truth&justice, and recalling the recent "Raymond Davis" affair, there is possibly a kinder, gentler way: the perpetrators *pay their way* out.

Should be easy-peasy; the same diaspora contributors who raised $US50mio+ pre-UNGA181, thus ensuring the Nakba outrage, can now contribute to raising today's equivalent (see fair&acceptable) - for peace.

And the possible rebuilding of reputations may be started with a (genuine!) "Sorry!"»

-=*=-

 .. 2nd last queued for today, target = La la la @ 12 Apr 2011 8:27:53pm:

«"La la la;" your 'pseud' is well chosen.

"... an agreement between the UK and the Arabs" - kindly substantiate *exactly* what you mean by 'UK and the Arabs;' i.e. provide documentation, for example were there referendums to anchor any such decision in any proper democratic majority? A: No. Q: What rights did either party have over the ELO/Os of Palestine and/or their property? A: None.

Proof of above: "A fair exchange is no robbery;" in which case, the hapless Palestinians would have looong ago decamped, with their fair recompense. *Obviously* never happened.

"... Declaration (of independence) occurred on" - kindly substantiate *exactly* how some burglar may declare him/herself 'independent' of the law? (Tip: Murdering theft is a crime.) A: Cannot.

"... it seems they are in constant war with Palestine" - no; the real 'war' is Zs against truth&justice (= *cannot* be won.)

"... choice seems to be between a democracy or a totalitarian regime" - also not, and non sequitur to boot.

The real choice is whether we, as the human race, can ever escape the so-called 'law of the jungle' - usually attributed to primitive animals; troglodytes, say.»

-=*=-

 .. and last queued for today, target = Anon @ 12 Apr 2011 9:33:28pm:

«It's a 'funny' thing (but *not* funny-ha-ha); why would anyone of sound mind go out of their way (like, crossing continents and whole oceans, even) - just to create enemies?

.. and then proceed to kill those created enemies, to steal their property/land? (See AIMs4S vs. ELO/Os.)

Oh. Keywords: "Of sound mind."

Anyone else notice how often Anon discusses killing such *created* enemies? "And while aiming at the enemy targets, civilians died." S/he means innocent civilians and not just a small few, *killed*. Oh no! Send in the UN, France, UK, US (robot cruise missiles), NATO - to protect the entire pre-'48 hapless innocent civilian Palestinian nation? No? *Why the B-hell not*?»

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
update 13Apr'11, a final post; one more to hammer the point,
 target = @ 13 Apr 2011 8:34:07am:

«chipinga: "Hell will freeze over ..."

Picture: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates_of_Hell

Zionists, their apologists and sympathisers alike, continually complain: "(Arabs/Muslims/someone/anyone) is out to kill us/Israelis/Israel."

Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin-type massacres (see definitions of 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'); crimes perpetrated by 'people-not-from-there' terrorist groups like Irgun and Lehi etc., quite literally opened the gates of Hell, both for the hapless victims = ELO/Os and the invading Zionist perpetrators = AIMs4S (definitions 'above').

Coming straight after WW2, the AIMs4S set out to commit what in more 'normal' times would be considered 'the crime of the century,' by stealing an entire country by violently driving out most of the native inhabitants.

So couched in vicious crime, Israel ('allowed,' even 'encouraged' by so-called 'great powers') persists in that illegitimate state - but, having opened those gates of Hell themselves, some have the temerity to complain if/when any victims attempt to reverse the Zionist-perpetrators' crimes. WTF?

Well, I say the world has had more than enough of this vile crime; since the UN has recently 'discovered' R2P for UNSCR1973, they should now *enforce* UNGA194 - to respect, protect & restore the former civilian population = ELO/Os to their freedom, place and property -
..by *all necessary measures*.»

PS Last one now published, 13 Apr 2011 6:34:48pm; goal achieved, hooray!

PPS Tried an extra one (silly me) - got censored;
 target = Peter the Lawyer @ 13 Apr 2011 2:55:10pm:

«Hmmm, denigratory ad-homs deployed: "many folk-marxists" ... "little brown people" ... "prepared to kill Jewish children..." - immediately denies any credibility Oh, so cynically claimed by the use of "the Lawyer" in the 'pseud' = likely propaganda (aka lies).

Perhaps IF the self-termed 'great powers' ceased meddling in countries-not-theirs, allowing if not encouraging properly democratic self-determination by any/all people not members of the Anglo/Judiac 'club,' i.e. adopted 'do unto others,' the converse 'do no harm' and adding 'mind their own business,' THEN the world might work that much better and friendlier, thus eliminating any cause or opportunity for anyone to go murdering-to-steal? Let me put that, another way: all aliens (people not from there) should cease crossing borders inwards = aggressively invading, any such alien invaders (here Zionist immigrants into Palestine) to return to whence they came - in clear text, leave the Muslim/Arab/oil lands alone, hopefully also in peace?»

Me: Nothing wrong with that - as always & of course, IMHO.

[«back»]

more in anger than in sorrow - more AusBC censorship, less comprehension

Beethoven may have suffered, however briefly, from 'Die wut über den verlorenen groschen.'

Some people, so it is said, cry over spilt milk.

But there's very little point in getting one's nickers in a twist, over AusBC censorship, for here we 'borrow' from detested Ameri-speak (spit!): "Don't get angry, get even."

One way to document the AusBC crimes against freedom of speech & therefore against democracy itself, is to list 'in here' the items they have censored:

1) posted ~09Jan'11,09:52pm;

{Say one thing, do another.

"You can say what you like" - but nothing helps, if you don't listen.

Claiming 'legality' whilst dismissing at least all of UNGA181, 194 & 273, and UNSCR242 leads to contradiction.

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories" does not reconcile well with "recognised as the lawful occupier," as "illegal settlements" attest.

See discussion on conceding; you did not dispute 'The law is an ass' nor 'Only *just* law can earn respect.'

Israel has ignored IntLaw from the beginning (i.e. Deir Yassin).

Israel's 'friend' vetoes anything critical.

Which means that IntLaw simultaneously means *all* to you/Israel - or *nothing* = contradiction.

It's the same as saying IF 'p' AND '~p' THEN no conclusion is possible.

This is not a Darlinghurst courtroom; arguing the 'legality' (and/or illegitimacy) means only to continue the status quo at best, leading to *more* opprobrium for one side, ever *less* justice for others.

The question is not of fiddling the legal system (un-levelling the 'playing field'), *clearly* what's been happening, but of seeking truth and justice.

The only 'win' possible is a win-win; *not* that the biggest/most guns get the spoil (aka murdering-burglary/home-invasion), but that *nobody* gets ripped-off.

«Primum non nocere.»}



2) 2nd (paraphrased) try, ~10Jan'11,06:45am;

{«qui tacet consentire videtur»

Recall "...only assume you concede them."

Not me; temporary silence may occur due to extraneous events.

Apropos, no-one disputed 'the law is an ass' nor 'only *just* law can earn respect.'

Claiming 'legality' whilst dismissing at least all of UNGA181, 194 & 273, and UNSCR242 leads to contradiction.

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories" does not reconcile well with "recognised as the lawful occupier," as illegal settlements attest.

Israel has ignored IntLaw from the beginning (i.e. Deir Yassin).

Israel's 'friend' vetoes anything UNSCR/critical.

Which means that IntLaw simultaneously means *all* to you/Israel - or *nothing* = contradiction.

It's the same as saying IF 'p' AND '~p' THEN no conclusion is possible.

This is not a Darlinghurst courtroom; arguing legality and/or illegitimacy means only to continue the appalling status quo, leading to *increasing* pariah-status and opprobrium for one side, ever *less* justice for hapless victims.

The question is not of fiddling the legal system (un-levelling the 'playing field'), but of genuinely seeking truth and justice.

The only *just* win is a mutual win; *not* when the biggest/most guns get the spoil (aka murdering-burglary/home-invasion), but when *nobody* gets ripped-off or killed.

«Arma potentius aequum»}


Comment: A lot of my inputs are duplications (in new permutations) of things I've written and had published before; AFAIK there's nothing particularly new or outrageous in the above inputs.


Sooo, two questions:

a) Who gives the AusBC the right to censor *at all*, then

b) What can they possibly object to, in my facts and fact-based opinions?

Suggested A to the latter: they are *part of the problem*. See? Nothing much new here; move along!